Thoughts on classical music in London, on the web and beyond. By Gavin Dixon.

Monday, 22 April 2013

Could Classical Music survive without Snobbery?

It’s
fun to laugh at snobbery. So fun that’s it’s easy to forget what an insidious
effect it has on classical music. Last week, the 2013 Proms programme was
published, leading to this
bizarre response from Stephen Pollard in the Express, who argues that the
whole two month festival is fatally compromised by the inclusion of a single
event featuring urban music.

Pollard
voices opinions about the relationship between classical music and other styles
that we rarely hear, but that inform the thinking of many in the classical
music world. He argues that rappers and DJs are not “real musicians”, because
they lack “years of practice”, “skill”, “intelligence” and “a basic concept of
genuine music”.

Classical
music continually finds itself on the defensive. Perhaps that’s fair, given
that it must defend a still-generous public subsidy denied to almost every
other genre. A sense of self-worth is crucial, and so we collectively and
unconsciously fit together all of the reasons we think classical music is great
into a matrix of value judgements. Those in the know share these values, so
they don’t often get discussed, but they revolve around the facts that
classical music is: notated, professionally produced, intellectually
challenging, and, possibly most importantly, part of long, long tradition.

But
look what happens when they are applied in the negative to other musical styles.
It is easy to find any other music wanting if these are your only value
criteria. And looking at them in the abstract, there is nothing self-evident
about these value judgements. Notation has an important function in the music
that uses it, but that function stops short of elevating the resulting sounds
above other musical discourses. The professional status of classical musicians
has its artistic benefits, but in social terms it can be seen to distance, even
insulate, the culture from the society it ought to serve. And as for historical
continuity, any young German or Austrian composer will tell you that working
within a culture so saturated with great historical figures isn’t exactly
conducive to creativity.

An
idea of cultural superiority pervades the classical music world, and although
the arguments above give some idea of the values that are seen to elevate the
music, the reasons why it even needs to be elevated remain obscure. At one end
of the spectrum it might be rationalised simply as personal taste, but that
seems like dangerously complacent thinking when at the other end we find a
range of unpleasant ideas about cultural supremacy.

Fortunately
for us, many musicians in recent times have addressed these issues head-on.
John Cage is perhaps the most important example, a composer who wanted us to
think differently about music, so took a few key pieces out of that matrix of
assumptions to see how the rest would fare. His introduction of chance into
both the composition and performing spheres reduced (I’d hesitate to say
removed) compositional decision making, setting his music adrift from intentionality
and historical continuity.

All
this began in the 1950s, but it’s still controversial, not least because of the
uncertainly it introduces into the status of the music that most of us would
like to continue thinking of as ‘classical’. Earlier this year, the composer
Daniel Asia wrote
an article for Huffington Post in which he rubbishes Cage’s legacy. The
article generated a lot of debate, with Tim Rutherford-Johnson among the more articulate
and perceptive critics of Asia’s argument (his articles on the subject here
and here).
But I’d like to suggest that Daniel Asia did John Cage a favour. Reading Asia’s
comments it is clear that Cage’s music offends his traditional views of what
music is. And so all those underlying assumptions come to the surface: Cage eschews
harmony which “has been central to Western music for over a thousand years, and
it is one of the glories of Western Civilization”. “...melody or motive is
rarely present.” And his music fails to engage the mind.

How
perfectly Daniel Asia encapsulates the thinking that John Cage sought to move
away from. In doing so he demonstrates exactly why Cage’s music is so
important. Cage himself said little against traditional musical values (the
quote that “Beethoven was wrong” is a rare exception), he just wanted to show
that an alternative was possible, an alternative way of thinking about sound
and an alternative value system for treating it as art. Many have accepted his
invitation, but the radical sound art that has since resulted, all the
happenings and gallery instillations, sit apart from the classical music world,
and rarely seek its approval, or even its money.

And
when they do seek its money there’s hell to pay. Last year, Norwegian avant-garde
improvisational music group Supersilent toured the UK on funds from the Arts Council.
Norman
Lebrecht protested that they didn’t deserve the money because...they don’t
rehearse. Of course, that is exactly the point of an avant-garde
improvisational music group, but as far as Lebrecht is concerned, musical value
is dependent upon (presumably amongst other things) serious rehearsal time.

Clearly,
there is no point in trying to adjust the values that we think make classical
music great. All those notions of depth, sophistication, insight and even
authenticity have accrued over a long period and stand up well on their own
terms. But today there is a lot of music at the edges of what we consider
classical, and some of it is out to challenge those assumptions. More
importantly, most music today is not “classical” in any sense and is produced
and enjoyed by people who have no interest in classical music’s value system.
The whole idea that classical music is superior in any sense to any other music
is a shaky intellectual construct at best. Most in the classical music world
are intent on preserving that belief, shared within the community, if not
beyond. Paradoxical thinking is required to maintain the logic of the argument,
but classical music as a culturally-superior art form remains a viable concept.
But if commentators are intent on bolstering its status by reversing its values
and then projecting them onto other musical traditions, it doesn’t stand a
chance.

Looking at this from the perspective of one who is frustrated at the hide-bound conservatism of some classical music lovers, I see--no, feel--your point about the intellectual underpinnings for an argument that so-called classical music is superior. But be careful what you wish for. Here in the U.S., that great egalitarian society, we have been cowed into accepting the idea that art music is no better than any other. In fact, worse, because the measure of such superiority is now, more than ever, ruled by what the most people want. Sales is the only viable measure of worth and the result is the virtual disappearance of art music from the schools, the airwaves, and the public consciousness. It is like all the galleries of the art museum--including, especially the contemporary wing--were filled with the crayon scrawls of anyone who could catch the attention of the public with a hook and savvy marketing. Miley Cyrus is just as good as Hillary Hawn. No, she is better, because she generates more revenue.

I understand that this is not where you intend your argument to lead, but I am convinced that it surely will. If the argument cannot be made, by those with the education to know, that there is a qualitative difference between a Miro and a Fred Schwartz patriotic poster sold from a kiosk at the shopping mall, then the measure will become lowest common denominator, and quantitative in nature, and Fred will be in the museums, and Miro in the trash. And classical music will be something one reads about in books, until those are gone, too.

Thanks for this Ron. I think it is very important to separate financial viability from artistic worth. We need to accept that, just because some music is popular (as opposed to populist), that doesn’t necessarily diminish its artistic status.The position of classical music in British culture, and particularly in London, is more secure than the situation you are describing. But even if classical music is in a more precarious position in the U.S., I still think it needs to be defended/promoted in an engaging way. If we think it is superior, we should say exactly why, rather than just assuming that everybody is going to agree with that assumption. Gavin

.

Gavin Dixon is a writer, journalist, editor and blogger specialising in classical music. He writes reviews and articles for a number of publications and websites. Gavin has a PhD on the Symphonies of Alfred Schnittke and is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is also a member of the editorial team behind the ‘Alfred Schnittke Collected Works’ edition, which recently began publication in St Petersburg. More information on Gavin’s writing activities can be found at his website: www.gavindixon.info